Progressive Radio Rants -- Minimum Wage

[Neally]

If the object of the work is to create a profit for the entrepreneur, the entrepreneur owes a decent day's provisions in exchange for that labor.

No, someones cost of living, by whatever random standard that is determined, is not what a persons labor is worth.

And as for the $100/hour absurdity that was raised upthread, the flip side is: Are you OK with the concept of people being paid say $1/hour? And sleeping in an alley and dining out of a dumpster? Is this part and parcel of Libertopia?

I'm okay with the market determining the wage that someone earns based on the supply and demand for their skills and not what their expenses are.

 

[Ziggurat]

And as for the $100/hour absurdity that was raised upthread, the flip side is: Are you OK with the concept of people being paid say $1/hour?

Why not?

And sleeping in an alley and dining out of a dumpster? Is this part and parcel of Libertopia?

Are you OK with people sleeping in an ally and dining out of a dumpster because they're unemployed? Is that part of liberaltopia?

Neither argument is valid, for the simple reason that this latter circumstance is not the inevitable result of the former. Our society provides social safety nets. People who are unemployed don't need to sleep in allies. People who are employed on $1/hr need not sleep in allies either.

But do I prefer that someone have the option to work for $1/hr rather than not have that option? Damned straight.

 

[thaiboxerken]

In libertopia, such safety nets don't exist.

 

[Francesca R]

In libertopia, such safety nets don't exist.

Relevance? Who is arguing for that?

I have argued that a minimum wage is an inferior "safety net" to redistributive public transfers.

 

[Ziggurat]

In libertopia, such safety nets don't exist.

We're not discussing libertopia. We're discussing the minimum wage.

 

[thaiboxerken]

We're not discussing libertopia. We're discussing the minimum wage.

Which doesn't exist in libertopia, along with safety nets.

 

[Francesca R]

Libertopia also doesn't exist in this discussion, except via your introduction.

Why are you trying to strawman?

 

[thaiboxerken]

The absence of a minimum wage only happens in libertopia, which is very much like Somolia.

 

[The_Animus]

Since I found Progressive Radio, I have been listening to them a lot. But not for the reasons one might think. I find it a study on human nature and how our brains work (or don't work properly) to preceive the world.

They are the ones who, I find, are on the wrong track and it is ironic that they are convinced that they are the intelligent, compassionate and correct ones.

The Left and the Right in the USA reminds me of the ying and the yang where one side is after the other and each contains how the other appear externally. It seems the good and pure and well intentioned Poltiical Left in the USA are the ones who are messed up at the core.

I cannot listen to them without grabbing a note pad and taking notes about some absurd notion they have that they thing will save us.

Cutting to the chase on this one point of this discussion thread:

A few days ago they insisted that the minimum wage should be 10 dollars an hour. It was on the Ed Shultz show and a number of callers agreed. In Washington State, college kids cannot get a job during summer or other breaks. This is because the minimum wage is among the hightest in this state within the Union. It is also why the unemployment among this age group is the highest in the Union.

The left wants to redistribute money from the rich to the middle class and the poor. The right wants to redistribute money from the middle class and poor to the rich. So yes, the left does tend to talk about ways to help the poor and a higher minimum wage is one of them. Meanwhile the right will say that is crazy, and teachers make too much money, while also saying that someone making $125,000+ is having a tough time in this economy and needs help.

I don't like either party, but I will say that Repubs are the Anti-Logic.

 

[Francesca R]

The absence of a minimum wage only happens in libertopia, which is very much like Somolia.

OK so you only need to have one? Doesn't matter how high it is?

 

[Ziggurat]

Which doesn't exist in libertopia, along with safety nets.

You are the only person trying to discuss libertopia. It's an off-topic strawman.

 

[Francesca R]

The left wants to redistribute money from the rich to the middle class and the poor. The right wants to redistribute money from the middle class and poor to the rich.

What does the liberal centre want to do?

How about make sure the poor have a threshold minimum (legislated in accordance with society's preference) that can be transferred most efficiently without hidden costs, and forget about the silly idea of "redistributing to the middle class"

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The absence of a minimum wage only happens in libertopia, which is very much like Somolia.

Somalia also has a lot of black people. Why do you so enjoy dumping on black people?

I mean, since we're going for ridiculous strawman arguments and all...

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The right wants to redistribute money from the middle class and poor to the rich.

You are confused. Taking someone's money to give to someone else is redistribution. Taking less of someone's money is not. Which is why it burns me up when people talk about how the Bush income tax cuts were "giveaways" to the rich. No one was "given" anything.

 

[leftysergeant]

Which is why it burns me up when people talk about how the Bush income tax cuts were "giveaways" to the rich. No one was "given" anything.

Bull flops. They were given a discount on the use of our infrastructure.

 

[Francesca R]

Bull flops. They were given a discount on the use of our infrastructure.

Do you think that the value gleaned from use of infrastructure is a linear proportion of total value generated?

So if you run a business that makes $100K profit, then you derived 100K x F in value from the infrastructure?

And if you run one that makes $10bn, then you derived 10bn x F in value from infrastructure?

 

[varwoche]

Why not?

Because I consider it exploitation, and because it's a legitimate function of government to prevent exploitation.

Are you OK with people sleeping in an ally and dining out of a dumpster because they're unemployed? Is that part of liberaltopia?

Naturally there's a downside to minimum wage. I'm not convinced it outweighs the upside.

 

[leftysergeant]

Do you think that the value gleaned from use of infrastructure is a linear proportion of total value generated?

In some cases, it is logarythmic.

So if you run a business that makes $100K profit, then you derived 100K x F in value from the infrastructure?

Not neccessarily. What your income tells us is how much you made compared to the rest of us, thus how much you benefitted from the existence of the infrastructure.

Warren Buffet clearly benefits at hundreds of times the rate that most people do, and so should be paying hundreds of times the rate that his receptionist does, if we go one-for-one. But that is hardly neccessary. He should, clearly, be paying a far higher rate as a percentage of his income than does the receptionist. That he does not is absurd, and it is the fault of the tax giveaways that the Shrub handed the top entrepreneurs in the mistaken belief that they were going to create jobs with it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because I consider it exploitation

So a person is faced with a choice: he can either not work, or he can accept a job for $1/hour.

If he doesn't prefer $1/hr to not working, then outlawing such a wage is pointless, since it makes no difference to him. So let's consider the case where he chooses to work for $1/hr.

You want to deprive him of that choices. You want to force him to not work, even though he would prefer to work for $1/hr. He has concluded that he is better off working for $1/hr than not working. But you have deprived him of this option.

I would submit that this person has more to fear from you than from his employer.

 

[Francesca R]

In some cases, it is logarythmic.

I agree with that. That means the benefit decreases as a proportion of income. "Infrastructure benefit" is therefore not an argument for progressive taxes, nor even flat taxes, but taxes that taper away as income rises.

You probably didn't mean it. In which case I probably disagree with you.

(Progressive tax rates are justified for other reasons, just not this one)